> You're approaching this from an American "if it's not an absolute 99.99%+ monopoly it's fine", instead of the EU "do they have a portion of the market so big

> You're approaching this from an American "if it's not an absolute 99.99%+ monopoly it's fine", instead of the EU "do they have a portion of the market so big they can distort it and prevent competition and thus hurt consumers". I'm not, but thanks for assuming. Apple is part of an oligopoly, which by definition doesn't hold enough market share to prevent competition. The facetious "99.99%+" point is masking the actual relevance. A company with 30% market share does not hold the power to impact the market in a monopolistic manner. In fact, the precedent set is worrying - if market share isn't the primary factor in regulating monopolistic behaviour, what is? Arbitrary, hand-wavey 'oh, they seem big enough' decisions from bereaucrats? I am a fan and supporter of inter-operable protocols. Forcing companies to bend to will around how they can build their software though is inherently stifiling though. I don't see any reason that Apple should be forced to provide iMessage interoperablity any more than Ford should be forced to share transponder information with Audi, so someone who owns both can unlock both cars with a single key.